Years after sneaking into the band's hotel as a teenage fan, Juan Rodriguez (centre) encountered Mick Jagger (left) and Keith Richards again as a rock critic, interviewing the musicians for The Gazette at the Rolling Stones' New York City offices.Michael Dugas
/ Montreal Star Collection

John Lennon, Ringo Starr, George Harrison, and Paul McCartney in a 1964 promotional photo for the film A Hard Day's Night, cited by Juan Rodriguez in his seven-part rock memoir.Handout
/ From Gazette files

Years after sneaking into the band's hotel as a teenage fan, Juan Rodriguez (centre) encountered Mick Jagger (left) and Keith Richards again as a rock critic, interviewing the musicians for The Gazette at the Rolling Stones' New York City offices.Michael Dugas
/ Montreal Star Collection

Related

For the past five years pop music has been dominated bythree major entitles: The Beatles, Bob Dylan, and the Rolling Stones. There areothers, of course, but they come and go. No one has had as much effect onthe direction rock than these three; and no one has had their staying power,either. Each has a different appeal. The Beatles have brought witand intelligence to the pop idiom. Dylan is revered as a poet, among otherthings. And the Stones have brought us excitement and explosion.

Despite their differences, they hold at least one thing incommon: They have not performed a concert or a tour since 1966. Dylansuffered a serious motorcycle accident and went into exile; his private life isheavily guarded and he seems to make a public comment only when a new record isreleased. The Beatles, fed up by the torrid Beatlemania years, sought toextend their capabilities in other fields. Thus, they dabbled with films,magical mystery tours, drugs, the Maharishi, corporate business, peace, as wellas music; they’ve tried – at time not too successfully – to do everything.

The Stones are known as the “bad boys” of pop and, in manyrespects, the last three years have been the most trying for them. In theirtouring days (form 1964-66 they travelled across America five times) they wereejected and rejected from countless hotels and restaurants on account of their“image” – the scruffy, sexy, hairy, dirty Stones. Now something moreserious; they are arrested for possession of drugs. Mick Jagger and KeithRichards, the two song-writers of the group, were the first to be arrested inthe summer of 1967; in fact, they were handcuffed and spent the night in jail,and this has become a symbol of police repression for many young people. Sincethen, Brian Jones, the guitarist, has been arrested and convicted twice and puton probation. And recently Mick Jagger, and his girlfriend actress MarianneFaithful, were found in possession of marijuana (although many now believe thatthe drugs were “planted” by the police) and haled into court.

This current affair seems the most serious, and Jagger –because of the wealth and exposure of his very existence – has become theobject of much scorn among many adult Britons. If the Beatles are known ascourt jesters, and therefore “harmless” Mick Jagger and his motley RollingStones are seen as nasty and dangerous. The present drug case could drag on formonths.

Amongst all the talk about the “image” of the Stones, whatis all too often forgotten is the fact that they have been responsible for someof the most vital and demanding of contemporary rock music. Their most famoussong is “Satisfaction.” What with its driving rhythm and its powerful lyric “Ican’t get no satisfaction” the song has become both a classic and an anthem forthe young.

From 1964 to the present the Rolling Stones have released 12albums – 18 singles in North America alone, most of which have exceeded themillion dollar sales mark. Through their recordings a portrait of the Stoneshas become clear: They are the tough, uncompromising, sexy and sensitive Stones– every song they have put out is an exploration and reflection of the cliché;thus, their songs have a marvelous continuity to them that few other groups possess.

One of their latest songs “Street Fightin’ Man,” wasreleased at the time of the Democratic convention in Chicago last year and wasconsequently banned from many American radio stations on the grounds that itwas “revolutionary.” The Stones are serious musicians and original stylists;nevertheless, many still associate them with revolting revolutionaries.

I met them first in 1965 when the opened their third NorthAmerican tour in Montreal. I remember them as tired, impatient andwithdrawn. They didn’t have much to say except for a few indistinguishablemurmurs. This was on the eve of “Satisfaction,” and up until they wereone of the few British groups without a number one hit. The less talented andempty-headed ensembles (remember Gerry and the Pacemakers, the Dave Clark Five,Herman’s Hermits?) had all scored spectacular hit-parade successes and althoughthe Stones had a dedicated private following most young people were stillfairly apprehensive about them. “Would you let your daughter marry a RollingStone?” This was the quality of their notoriety.

When I met them recently in London they exuded ease andconfidence. They are still the same old Stones – sensitive and suspicious – buttheir place in the pop pantheon is now assured.

Apart from Jagger’s recent arrest, there was much activityconcerning the Stones. First, guitarist Brian Jones had left the group becausehe felt he wanted to compose his own music. The split was described as “amicable,”and now Mick Taylor, a former guitarist from another top British group, JohnMayall’s Bluesbreakers, has come in to fill the gap. A new single, “HonkyTonk woman,” has been released; it was their first in Britain for 14 months.Jagger has just completed a movie; he plays the leading role in“Performance”. An album will be released in September and the Stones areto give their first concert in three years in Hyde Park on July 5.

If time permits, they will squeeze in a tour of Americanbetween Jagger’s next film and his drugs trial.

The interview takes place at Rolling Stones Ltd., which islocated in a third floor suite on Maddox Street.

As I walk in I am surprised by the modesty and un-modishnessof the place. It is cozy and comfortable, but not at all pretentious.This, indeed, is noteworthy; one is used to seeing plastic and pop art postersand polka-dotted pastel designs in the offices of most pop enterprises.

As I wait for them to arrive Elvis Presley is playing on thephonograph: “Don’t you step on my blue suede shoes.” Elvis Presley, theliner notes of this ancient album tells us, “has zoomed into big-timeentertainment practically overnight.” I remember back to the time when Isaw Elvis for the first time on the Ed Sullivan show. Since then he went intothe army and he became a movie star and lost his genuine talent for singingcountry rock songs. Nevertheless, Elvis is a legend and every rock-n-roll bandworth its salt is indebted to him. It is strange listening to his faraway 1956Memphis voice while waiting for the new masters, the Rolling Stones 1969.

Mick Taylor, the new Stone, is the first to walk in. He is early. Early! Nevertheless, he tries to remain nonchalant to the thoughtof being a Rolling Stone.

He has long wavy hair, slightly unmanageable, and his palebaby-face harkens back to something out of the Dead End kids.

Later, he conducts a telephone interview with a discjockey. “Mick, how does it feel to be a Rolling Stone?” Mick Taylorflushes with embarrassment at the inevitability of the question. “Oh…un,it feels great. Fine. There’s nothing to it at all. I’mparticularly looking forward to playing live.”

Bill Wyman, bassist, Charlie Watts, drummer, and MickJagger, lead singer, arrive laughing and sharing a few private jokes. Mickdisappears into another room. Bill and Charlie settle down to eat some take-outfood – salad, sandwiches and tea. They are incredibly pale and thin –particularly Bill Wyman, who is genially known as the “ugliest” Stone but doesnot look half as bad as his photos make out. Wyman and Watts provided theStones with probably the most dependable and exciting rhythm section in allrock. They are background boys, preferring to concentrate on their professionand nothing extra, and as such they have had very little to say. I askedCharlie a question and he seemed so dumbfounded by my need to ask that hedidn’t know what to answer. They concentrate on their salad; afterwards theysit leafing through the pages of an old Rolling Stones fan magazine (1964), laughingat each inane caption.

At last, Keith Richard, who has just woken up (it is 3:30),arrives and sits attentively at the head of the table waiting for questions. Heis the tallest (5’11”) but also the thinnest and palest of the Stones. He haslet his straight black hair grow longer than his pictures suggest; as a result,his face appears frighteningly small; his bright piercing eyes and hollowcheeks dominate. His emaciated body is covered by an eccentric assortment ofclothes; bright red undershirt, leather-strung medallion, a Joe College-typebutton-down cream-coloured blue-striped shirt, ludicrously skin tightbell-bottoms and huge silver western studs down the side.

What is the greatest lie ever written about you?

“I don’t know. I haven’t read them all.”

“If you tour America again do you expect any trouble fromthe police?”

“I don’t know what to expect. It’s all differentnow. We haven’t toured for three years. In 1964 everything was prettyuh…orderly. The cops didn’t really bother us. Now it seems to bedifferent. From what I hear about Berkeley (he pronounce sit Barkley) it seemfreaky…”

Are you apprehensive about doing a concert again? Are youafraid you’ll make mistakes?

“Hell, I made mistakes before. I don’t know what it’sgoing to be like playing live again.

“In the old days the audiences were the real stars. They didmore than us on the stage. They were the performers. They never reallylistened. We just sort of satisfied their little teenage sexualobsessions….there’s a very thin line between a riot at a pop concert and a rioton a campus.”

What do you think of the young people who are readingpolitical messages into your songs?

Many people say that “Street Fightin’ Man” was thedefinitive political statement of the rolling Stones.

“Was it really? Look: I’m still trying to figure out whatthe song was all about. I mean, what do the lyrics say? But whatcan poor boy do but play in a rock-n-roll band.”

“Sympathy for the Devil,” one of the best of their recentcompositions, attempts to synthesize the human element into a cursory panoramaof some of history’s greatest disasters. The song lashes out – “Whokilled the Kennedys, when after all it was you and me.” The refrain ishypnotic, “Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name, what’s puzzlin’ you, isthe nature of my game.”

“There is a devil in everybody. The sooner people faceup to it the better. It’s not bad; it’s not good. It’s just there.

What do you think of those who think of the Stones asleaders of the radical young?

Keith answers with a bitter smile. “Look. All I reallywant to do is turn a few pople on…on to themselves. I mean, I don’t alwaysrealize what I was doing. But then I found out. We had this abilityto bring kids together. We had this power…and it makes kids just let go…”

If you were invited to play at a peace rally, would youaccept?

“Well, yes, I guess so,” he says gingerly. “I’mprobably very selfish, but I’m really just interested in playing music.”

What about those who think you owe to the “movement?”

“Look, I’ve been hassled by cops far more than manyother people. You get used to it. What amuses me is that a lot of poorinnocent people are really shocked when they really see that all theauthorities are completely bent. …Riots aren’t gonna change anything. People have to change. I don’t really have any alternatives. All weknow is that we don’t like it the way it is.”

Some radicals suggest that you don’t need an alternative tochange things.

“Well, someone better come up with an alternative. Theriots are just a sign that things have to change.”

Keith has had enough. He get up, put on a grey top hatthat’s been lying on a shelf, walks around for 10 seconds, decides to take thetop hat off, and wander out.

When he comes into the room again, Mick Jagger isaccompanying him. Mick is now, more than ever, the product ofsuccess. He radiates measures of confidence, intelligence, arrogance,sensitivity and fatalism that only stardom can bring. For many rockfollowers he is the king, more impressive than such people as Elvis, JohnLennon or Dylan.

In real life, he is quite small, wafer-thin and pale; Hislarge head seems out of proportion with his matchstick of a body. Hisfamous lewd and sexy rubber lips are not as large as they are in pictures andhis face is a bit blotchy, but one can readily see why he is so worshipped andimitated.

Mick has taken an interest in movies. In “Performance” heplays a narcissistic pop star; in his next film he will portray an Australianfolk-hero bandit names Ned Kelly. Actually, the Stones are no stranger tofilm. In 1964 they headlined the “Big TNT Show,” an electrovisionteenage package that rolled around local cinemas at Christmas time. Times, as they say, have changed, though. In 1968 they are headliners ofJean-Luck Godard’s latest show “One Plus One.”

A small controversy ensued when Godard hit producer IanQuarrie for having added the recorded version of “Sympathy for the Devil,” atthe film’s end. I was very disappointed with the Stones,” said Goddard.(He had tried to enlist the Beatles for the same film. When they turned himdown, he expressed disappointment in them, and then turned to theStones). “They didn’t even say it was the wrong idea to add the completedversion of their song the end of the film. I wrote to them and theydidn’t say anything. It was very unfair for them to accept them beingemphasized over all the others in the film.”

Mick described Godard with a few curt unprintables, sayingthat if Godard wanted to film the Stones recording their song that was fine,but that they had no responsibility towards him or the producer. Keithsneered “Godard sounds like a schoolboy. He’s just so earnest.” As yet,they have not seen the film.

The Stone’s sequence in “One Plus One” is interspersed withshots of a couple of Black Power leaders giving speeches.

“I don’t think Goddard knows anything about black people,”Mick says emphatically. “He just got himself a couple of two-bithustlers. I don’t know what they black power people want. They seemto want to separate from American completely. I say they should walk intoSouth Africa and take over and forget about the U.S.”

Can we talk about your trial?

“Well, I can talk about the bust; it’s you who can’t talkabout it. I can say as much as I like about the bust.” He then proceedsto say as little as possible on the subject.

“It’s not a matter of finding drugs on the premises,anymore. It just has to do with arresting us. They don’t have tofind anything to arrest us. It happens every year now. The copswill stop only when they think of something else to do.”

You were at the second Grosvenor Square peacedemonstration. How did you feel about the violence?

“I enjoyed it. I got a really nice buzz fromthat. It’s like our concerts in the old days. When we were on stagewe were showing off. My whole act was showing off. And showing offis violence. It’s the same sort of feeling of exhibitionism.”

Mick says that the Stones plan to do several free outdoorconcerts in the future.

“Outside concerts are nice. You can’t get hemmedint. There’s no trouble with the cops because there’s lots of room. No one’s gonna push you against any wall. On the other hand, outdoormusic festivals that run for three days are just a drag. There’s nospontaneity.”

What do you think of the British press?

“Amusing,” Mick says.

“Quaint,” chimes Keith.

“The British have no idea of what to do with the media.”Mick went on to say that he thinks most television is awful and that althoughhe doesn’t watch TV he’s seen enough to say that it is terrible. Hethinks the future of television will be seen in the new home video-tape playerswhereby people will be able to write, act in and produce their own programs. Healso thinks the day is not too far off when people will be able to buy theirown prints of movies and build up a “movie library” without ever having to goto the cinema. Mick, needless to say, is fascinated by the effect of thenew technology on our culture.

What is your opinion of pop music criticism?

“Most of it is very pretentious. And there’s nothingworse for a new a group than a review from someone who doesn’t know what he’stalking about. Because they start to believe it and they start playingawful music…”

How do you view rock music as a subculture and as an artform?

“Rock music is today’s folk music. It’s the music of a hugegroup of people. It’s not talk music in a pure sense; we’re so tied up ina corporate thing that it has lost its purity, it’s not really much of aculture. But I still think it’s reasonable healthy.”

Finally: what do you think of interviews?

“I don’t mind them really. It only becomes a bit of adrag because I’m talking so much that I run out of ideas. I mean, I’vesaid it all before.

Almost Done!

Postmedia wants to improve your reading experience as well as share the best deals and promotions from our advertisers with you. The information below will be used to optimize the content and make ads across the network more relevant to you. You can always change the information you share with us by editing your profile.

By clicking "Create Account", I hearby grant permission to Postmedia to use my account information to create my account.

I also accept and agree to be bound by Postmedia's Terms and Conditions with respect to my use of the Site and I have read and understand Postmedia's Privacy Statement. I consent to the collection, use, maintenance, and disclosure of my information in accordance with the Postmedia's Privacy Policy.

Postmedia wants to improve your reading experience as well as share the best deals and promotions from our advertisers with you. The information below will be used to optimize the content and make ads across the network more relevant to you. You can always change the information you share with us by editing your profile.

By clicking "Create Account", I hearby grant permission to Postmedia to use my account information to create my account.

I also accept and agree to be bound by Postmedia's Terms and Conditions with respect to my use of the Site and I have read and understand Postmedia's Privacy Statement. I consent to the collection, use, maintenance, and disclosure of my information in accordance with the Postmedia's Privacy Policy.